from washington, "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over three decades, to you july 4th. the celebration of america's declaration of independence from great britain. seeking life, liberty, and the

pursuit of happiness. the july 4th grand display of fireworks overhead on wednesday may not have been all that was up there. what else? there may also have been drones. drones are unmanned aerial vehicles, uav's. pilotless aircraft used mostly by the u.s. military for surveillance, reconnaissance, and killing, as in yemen recently. he here at home, law enforcement agencies, local police, are eager to utilize drones for civil surveillance. some already do. 146 commercial drones are now accessible for civil law enforcement nationwide. the number is expected to skyrocket. the the u.s. senate armed services committee called for allowing these drones to operate, quote unquote, freely and routinely in u.s. airspace.

such authorization has rattled some members of congress. notably republican senator rand paul. he's introduced an act to prohibit the i don't say of drones by u.s. civilian government unless authorized by a warrant. that would put parameters on such usage. >> what i would say is that drones could be used if you have a proper warrant but that means you go through a judge, a judge has to say there's probable cause of a crime, but i don't want dreams crisscrossing our city and country snooping on americans. that's a surveillance state that i'm very concerned about and that's what our bill would stop. >> question is senator rand paul's worry about a potential surveillance state, a, is it over the top? b, is it on the mark? c, is it understated? >> john, i think it's right on the mark but it's not simply the drones. look at where we are. winston and gule '89 1984, what

were they, the telescreens of big brother were all over the place. look at where these cameras are. liquor stores, bars, hotels, everywhere you go. individuals have these phones now, and they can take pictures of you. look what happened to the senator from virginia. and so i think it really is an overmonitorred society, and drones would add something to the, but only marginally, but i do think rand paul is exactly right. if you are going to get the cops to put these drones over somebody's house they ought to have a warrant to do it. >> i think it's a little over the top, a little survivalist mentality. >> on his part. >> on his part. he doesn't want anybody checking to see how many cans of food he's got stacked in his basement. but i tend to be live and let live on this subject. i think we have surrendered so much of our privacy between all the cameras that pat is talking about, facebook. you can google anybody and find out a lot about them.

i don't -- i'm not alarmed about it, but i do take his larger point that the technology is now sprinting ahead of us so fast that there may be some room here for federal regulation, and i hate to tell him. he would not like the federal government probably getting involved in this, but i think that's probably going to happen at some point. >> do you think pat is trying to hide something from any possible drone inspection? or from this panel? >> it's all out there, john. [ laughter ] >> what do you got? >> i think it's overwloan blown with the drones. look, drones after horrible image, because we hear about them in the news when they're flying over some foreign country assassinating somebody, so then you get the vision of them flying here in the u.s. and you get this vision of a blade runner type of society but i think the 4th amendment

judicious amendment -- jurisprudence would apply. if you're trying a drone over pat's favorite neighborhood bar and it might be on a camera otherwise doing things you don't want to talk about, that's okay. [ laughter ] >> i think in some ways it's over the top, but if you're really worried about it, if paul is really worried about it, it's understated, because he only talks about police drones following criminal activity. it makes sense that you would need a warrant for. that but most of the surveillance going on is not cops, not the government, it's the private sector. how many private eyes are buying drones right now to look for a philandering husband? there's google maps, for that matter have been controlled in some country as far as what pictures they can put up on the web because they've been getting shots of people nude

sunbathing. everyone of us with a cell phone has a tv studio in our pocket. >> so you want them or not? >> for police, have a warrant, but what about the private sector? >> trying to apprehend a criminal or a guy that holds up a drugstore. >> you're talking about a security camera. that's your own property. >> no, i'm talking about. >> they use helicopters right now -- >> if your car -- >> why don't we put them right on that front door. >> shoot ws said that. i'm not going to say. that. >> they now use cameras on helicopters if you have got car chases. i think you use those in the same way you use the helicopter, but survey somebody, you should get a warrant. >> actually i think the greatest threat could come from corporate america and trying to

check out consumer habits, and they would just float over these suburban neighborhoods. [ laughter ] >> if there's money to be made out of manufacturing and selling drones, big potential money, especially we're going to have a widespread national adoption on local police forces. >> what's the market? >> it is clearly, although it may be overstated right now, there's clearly time, so let's see more before we legs late anything. that's the question. will the worry about a potential surveillance drone be regulated by cities, states, or the federal government, eventually? >> eventually i think the police are going to have to get warrants to use them against suspects. >> eventually the feds will come in and the tea party will say keep government's hands off my drones. >> there will be rules at the state and the city level. >> what do you think? >> i think there's going to debate this forever, because

where do you draw the line? on public space, is that really an invasion of privacy? >> the worst regulation that can come are the most protective, like guns. you register your name, you sign this is your gun, we put the number of the gun on it, and that's it for now. when we come back, the 1% need apply. you understand me?

issue two. the 1% elite. >> let's put behind this idea of attacking me because of my investments or my money and let's get republicans to say, you know what, what you have accomplished shouldn't be seen as a detriment but an asset. >> during the primary season candidate mitt romney's monetary worth was the subject of jabs by his republican opponents. romney defended his wealth, gained from his own investments. his financial disclosure report was released in april by his campaign. it shows the candidate is worth between 190 to 255 million dollars. mr. romney's opponent is also a millionaire. barack obama. worth, along with his wife michelle, a minimum of 2.6 million and a maximum of 8.3

million dollars. president obama earns royalties on his books, notably "dreams from my father" but also," the audacity of hope." he also has half a million to $1 million in a jp morgan investment account and a house in which i cage gunned many diversified other relatively small investments. the president's disclosure statement allows for rang when listing assets so it is unclear how much the president is exactly worth. the same holds true for the reports on mitt romney. but what is clear is that two multimillionaires, mr. obama and mr. romney, are competing for the top job in this nation and for leader of the world. >> question, what are we to make, if anything of two multimillionaires seeking to become president of this nation and the leader of the free world? >> not a whole lot.

>> business as usual? >> looking back at presidential candidates for as far as i can see, most of them were pretty rich, and if they weren't rich when they were first elected, they somehow managed to get rich. >> how about rank and file americans? >> harry truman is the last president i can think of who wasn't wealthy and actually didn't even make money after he left office. so i think these levels of money are kind of meaningless. you do want to ask where they came from, and i think, you know, the president has made his money writing books, and mitt romney has made his money in the private sector, which he is using as his qualification to be president, and so rightfully that's being examined. and i appreciate the look at the obama's house in chicago. are we going to look at the romney houses? seven or eight? [ laughter ] >> michelle is a real-estate person, and i think that house has a value of about a million

dollars. >> i'm sure. >> that's beater section of chicago. >> what do you think it's worth? >> that's a great neighborhood there. it's hard to say. since the real-estate bubble is over now, maybe it's down to around a million now. >> and there's a lot next to the, and i think he sold a lot. >> part of it. >> there are. america's most exclusive club. collectively the worth of all members of both the house and the senate in 2010, hold your breath, $2 billion. and that's a minimum estimate. so says roll call newspaper which focuses on capitol hill. here are the top 10 richest jojo million. four, frank lawsuiten 45 millio

seven, bob caulker, 21 million. nine, claire mccaskill, democrat, 17 million. >> reporter: lamar alexander, tennessee, 10 million v. the 10 richest senators in congress, seven are democrats, three republicans. >> question, by the way, roll call newspaper says that roughly 40%, 40% of the u.s. congress are millionaires. the wealth of members of congress is divided fairly evenly between the parties, democrats in the senate hold 80% of the wealth and republicans in the household 78% of the wealth. what about all this money? >> first of all, running for office is a big roll of the day, and so people who do it generally have a nice little financial cushion that they can fall back on if it doesn't work

out. so i think the people who run for congress as a whole tend to be more well healed. but the washington post has done some terrific reporting lately on the way that members of the house in particular, both parties, and the senate, too, i think, have used their insider knowledge of the economic picture, particularly during that meltdown in 2008- 2009, to make changes in their investment portfolios that benefited them. and insider trading, which they've tried to put some restraints object, they haven't done anything illegal, but it sure smells. >> it smells? >> they're quite comfortable, sort of a predicate of picking up and running for office, and this unof them get poor once in of okay, top 1% top 1% of the u.s. house of representatives -- >> in the house of representatives there are

currently 435 seats. the wealth index. one, michael two, darrell issa, california, 220 dededededededed republican, florida, million. five, jim bernatchy. nancy pelosi, 35 million, freel 10, kenny marchand, republican, texas, 16 million v. the 10 richest members of the house question, what do these rich house numbers tell you? >> it's easier to run for office when you have that cushion of some wealth,

although interestingly, a lot of self-funding really rich candidates fail, because they think because i'm rich, and i've succeeded at something else, i can jump into politics and be a success at that when actually having experience in politics help. and two, it really helps to have to go out and raise money, because that's another way you get -- >> do you think that you really must have a cushion, a financial cushion in your life, before you can make a political run, not to pay for campaign, but to pay for everything else? follow me? >> i've recommended, young people ask, and i say before you go into politics, get yourself a business or a calling or a vocation that you can fall back on when you lose. otherwise, if you get into politics -- >> what about regulating the use of money in political campaigns? >> i'm not for that but go back to your point, john, or eleanor's point, linden johnson came to washington, d.c. without a penny and he died with 32 million and he had a

media empire and all these other goodies. >> he's high on the list of richest people. >> if you read the latest biography, linden johnson was like 24 hours away from possibly being indicted when kennedy was assassinated and everybody forgot about it. >> july 4th. would the founding fathers have approved of all these rich gaze and gals in the congress? or is that the original plan? >> is that the exit question? >> that's the exit question. >> okay to me. washington, madison. jefferson, three of the founding fathers had giant plantations with slaves and were among the richest. ben franklin was an inventor. john adams hugely successful. >> washington, a great general. >> but they're all elites, the most powerful men in the

country. >> they tried to reserve the vote for elites and people have chipped away, women, african americans. the founding fathers were not perfect. >> very rich but not a lot of liquid assets because it was tied up in the land. you ready about washington having to scrounge around for money to make it up to washington. >> and thomas jefferson wasn't good at managing his money although a genius at other things. this is the gift of democracy and they were trying to protect themselves. >> something else, what about? >> slave labor. >> that's true. that was the foundation, the slaves couldn't vote at that time, but the language in the constitution led to slaves getting that vote eventually, and the indians and women. >> the constitution is silent on the matter. >> the language in the declaration was a great -- >> i'm not talking about live rei. the language of the constitution ison wealth. issue three. where are the women?

>> female voters will be a formidable block in the november presidential election just over four months from now if recent history acts as guide. women voters have comprised a larger segment of the voting electorate of men in every presidential election since 1984. in the last go-around, 2008, 53% of the electorate was comprised of women. compared to 47% men. so, with so many women voting, why are they so vastly underrepresented in the federal government? of the 100 senators in the u.s. senate, 17 senators are women. so the senate is 17 women, 83 men. and the 435 members in the u.s. house of representatives, 7 iii women, 360 men, two vacancies. why are there so few,

especially relatively speaking, when it's very vivid, women in the congress, eleanor? >> because they have better things to do, and i'm not -- >> now wait a minute. >> i'm not just trying to be -- >> are you slurring the political -- >> i'm saying there are so many opportunities available now to women where you don't have to put your whole family on display, you don't have to make your tax returns public, you don't have to turn your life over seven days, 24 hours, and you don't have to put up with all the criticism from your opponents. politics is a tough profession but there are like a dozen pretty high-profile women running for the senate and the house in this election cycle, mostly democrats, some are republicans, and so there are some predictions that we could get the numbers up this time. the year of the woman in 1992, four women, democratic women, were elected to the senate, and that was like, boy, that shocked the system, that that many women could get in at one time. now both parties are recruiting women because they see that electorate which is dominantly

women, but women don't necessarily vote for women because of the gender. >> cut to the chase here, all right? when will the united states elect a female president? when? >> you want a year? >> i want a year. we've got four quadrennial cycles. >> 2040 or 2050. >> that late? >> let's hope. so [ laughter ] >> eleanor. >> hillary has a duty to run for president? >> doesn't after duty but a lot of women, and some men were -- >> she has her own agenda. her agenda, not our agenda. >> the time has come and gone, i believe. >> to have the right woman at the right time. >> here we go. >> the country is ready for it. >> national review. there you are. >> you like specificity. >> i do. >> hillary clinton, 2016.

>> okay. >> if there's no republican, the vice president now, cannot even consider any woman for vice president on the ticket. >> 2040. >> 2028. 2028. that's four cycles ahead. >> who is it going to be? >> we'll be right back with predictions.

predictions. pat. >> stockton, california, largest city in america ever to go bankrupt. unfortunately the next one is going to be detroit. >> a record number of women will be elected in the 2012 cycle. >> rich. >> no democratic senate candidates run advertisements about their support of obamacare. >> obamacare is going to turn out to be a plus for obama before november. >> listen to. this fasten your seat belts. i predict the strongest reason why mr. obama may lose the election in november will be public outrage over obamacare. bye-bye! ♪

♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] a moment of silence for the internet as we know it. a revolution in internet speed is here. more than twice as fast as anything america has ever seen. introducing fios quantum. call the verizon center for customers with disabilities at 800-974-6006 tty/v.